Hillary Clinton on Tax Reform

Secretary of State; previously Democratic Senator (NY)

I will not add taxes on anyone earning under $250,000

I have said repeatedly throughout this campaign: I will not raise taxes on anyone making $250,000 or less. I also will not add a penny to the debt. I have costed out what I'm going to do. He will, through his massive tax cuts, add $20 trillion to the
debt. We know how to get control of the debt. When my husband was president, we went from a $300 billion deficit to a $200 billion surplus and we were actually on the path to eliminating the national debt. When President Obama came into office, he
inherited the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. He has cut the deficit by two-thirds. So, yes, one of the ways you go after the debt, one of the ways you create jobs is by investing in people. So I do have investments, investments in
new jobs, investments in education, skill training, and the opportunities for people to get ahead and stay ahead. That's the kind of approach that will work.

I have always been in favor of banning carried interest

Q: What specific tax provisions will you change to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share in taxes?

Trump: One thing I'd do is get rid of carried interest. One of the greatest provisions for people like me, to be honest with you,
Clinton could have done this years ago, by the way. She was a US senator.

Clinton: I've been in favor of getting rid of carried interest for years, starting when I was a US senator.

Trump: Why didn't you do it?

Clinton: Because I was a senator with a Republican president.

Trump: Oh, really?

Clinton: I will be the president and we will get it done. That's exactly right.

Trump: You could have done it, if you were an effective senator. But you were not an effective senator.

Clinton: Under our Constitution, presidents have something called veto power.

Trump loophole: $4B tax benefit for Trump family

TRUMP: The wealthy are going tocreate tremendous jobs. They're going to expand their companies. I'm getting rid of the carried interest provision. It's a great thing for companies to expand. And when these people are going to put billions and billions
of dollars into companies, and when they're going to bring $2.5 trillion back from overseas, where they can't bring the money back, because politicians like Secretary Clinton won't allow them to bring the money back, because the taxes are so onerous.

CLINTON: I don't see changes in the corporate tax rates or the kinds of proposals [Trump was] referring to that would cause the repatriation, bringing back of money that's stranded overseas. I happen to support that. I happen to support that in a way
that will actually work to our benefit. [Trump has] what is called now the Trump loophole, because it would so advantage you and the business you do. [He has] proposed an approach that has a $4 billion tax benefit for [his] family.

Trickle-down hasn't worked; no slashing taxes on wealthy

When you look at what [Trump is] proposing, I call it "trumped-up trickle-down." Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn't worked. And a lot of really smart, wealthy people
know that. And they are saying, hey, we need to do more to make the contributions we should be making to rebuild the middle class. I don't think top-down works in America.
I think building the middle class, investing in the middle class, making college debt-free so more young people can get their education, helping people refinance their debt from college at a lower rate.
Those are the kinds of things that will really boost the economy. Broad-based, inclusive growth is what we need in America, not more advantages for people at the very top.

Single-payer care & free college will mean high taxes

CLINTON; Senator Sanders' commitment to really changing systems: free college, a single payer system for health, and it's been estimated we're looking at 18 to $20 trillion, about a 40 percent increase in the federal budget. I have looked at his plans
for health care, and it really does transfer every bit of our health care system including private health care, to the states. I think we've got to be really thoughtful about how we're going to afford what he proposed.

SANDERS: Secretary
Clinton is wrong. You know that the US per capita pays far more than other country. It is unfair simply to say how much more the program will cost without making sure that people know that we are doing away with cost of private insurance and that the
middle class will be paying substantially less for health care on the single payer.

CLINTON: Your proposal is to go and send the health care system to the state. And my analysis is that you are going to get more taxes out of middle class families.

Millionaires should pay 30% tax rate instead of 0%-10%

I want to make sure the wealthy pay their fair share, which they have not been doing. I want the Buffett Rule to be in effect, where millionaires have to pay 30 percent tax rates instead of 10 percent to nothing in some cases. I want
to make sure we rein in the excessive use of political power to feather the nest and support the super wealthy. I also want to create jobs and I want to be a partner with the private sector. I'm particularly keen on creating jobs in small business.

Pledge for no increase in middle tax taxes

Q: You said it's your goal not to raise taxes on families making under $200,000. Can you say that's a promise?

A: That is a pledge that I'm making. I don't think we should be imposing new big programs that are going to raise middle class families'
taxes. We just heard that most families haven't had a wage increase since 2001 since the end of the last Clinton administration when incomes did go up for everybody. We've got to get back to where people can save money again.

Wealthy pay too little and middle class pay too much

At the center of my campaign is how we're going to raise wages. Yes, of course, raise the minimum wage, but we have to do so much more. We have to figure out how we're going to make the tax system a fairer one. Right now, the
wealthy pay too little and the middle class pays too much. So I have specific recommendations about how we're going to close those loopholes, make it clear that the wealthy will have to pay their fair share, and have tax cuts for middle-class families.

Absolutely no tax increase on people earning under $250K

Q: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?

CLINTON: I will let the taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year go back to the rates that they were
paying in the 1990s.

Q: Even if the economy is weak?

CLINTON: Yes. And here’s why: #1, I do not believe that it will detrimentally affect the economy by doing that. We used that tool during the 1990s to very good effect and I think we can do so again
I am absolutely committed to not raising a single tax on middle class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year. In fact, I have a very specific plan of $100 billion in tax cuts.

Q: An absolute commitment, no middle-class tax increases of any
kind.

CLINTON: No, that’s right. That is my commitment.

Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?

OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it. But it would be between $200,000 and $250,000.

Perhaps raise capital gains tax, but at most to 20%

Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%.” It’s now 15%. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then
George Bush has taken it down to 15%.

OBAMA: What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

CLINTON: I wouldn’t raise it above the 20% if I raised it at all. I would not raise it above what it was during the Clinton administration.

Q: “If I raised it at all”. Would you propose an increase in the capital gains tax?

CLINTON: You know, I’m going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is. We now have the largest budget deficit we’ve ever had, $311 billion. We went from a $5.6 trillion projected surplus to what we have today, which is a $9 trillion debt.

Rescind tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year

When Bush came into office, he inherited a balanced budget and a surplus. It is gone. We now are looking at a projected deficit of $400 billion, under the new Bush budget, and a $9 trillion debt. We borrow money from the Chinese to buy oil from the
Saudis. I will get us back to fiscal responsibility. I will make it clear that the Bush tax cuts on the upper income, those making more than $250,000 a year, will be allowed to expire. My priorities are middle-class tax cuts and support for the middle
class, to make college affordable, retirement security possible, health insurance affordable. It’s important that we look at where the money has gone under Bush -- no-bid contracts, cronyism, outsourcing the government in ways that haven’t saved us money
and have reduced accountability. We can get back on the path we were on. It was one of the reasons why the economy was booming. I’ve got that clearly in my economic blueprint, because it’s part of what we have to do again.

AdWatch: cut taxes for the middle class

Direct-mail piece sent to Arizona voters by the Clinton campaign:

Which presidential candidate will solve America’s toughest economic problems? Only Hillary Clinton has the right solutions for America.

Hillary Clinton.
A plan to cut taxes for the middle class. A comprehensive plan to end the housing crisis with a moratorium on foreclosures and a freeze in mortgage rates for at-risk homeowners.
Redirect billions in oil company profits to alternative energy research to find solutions to our energy crisis and create 5 million new, good paying jobs.

Barack Obama. No plan to place a moratorium on home foreclosures.
Voted for Dick Cheney’s energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies. And he wants to raise Social Security taxes by a trillion dollars.

Wealthy should go back to paying pre-Bush tax rates

Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.

CLINTON: That’s right.

OBAMA: I’m not bashful about it.

CLINTON: Absolutely

OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more. But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the
biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.

CLINTON: It’s just really important to underscore here that we will go back to the tax rates we had before George Bush became president. And my memory is, people did really well during that time period. And they will keep doing really well.

Want to restore the tax rates we had in the ‘90s

It’s important we recognize how people feel in Iowa and across America. They’re one pink slip, one medical diagnosis away from falling through. I want to restore the tax rates we had in the ‘90s. That means raising taxes on corporations and wealthy
individuals. I want to keep the middle-class tax cuts, and I want to start making changes that will save us money, save money in our Medicare budget, save money for the average American. During the ‘90s the typical Indiana family’s income rose $7,000.
I want to go back to a question. You all campaign on fairly significant new programs in education, health care, and the like that will cost Billions of dollars. At the same time, many of you have said that even if we start pulling troops out of
Iraq now, it will take some time to do that in a safe and orderly way. So if we assume that we’ll continue to have some military expenses in Iraq for many months, how will you pay for your new ideas in the short term?

Freeze estate tax at 2009 level of $7 million per couple

I’m in favor of doing something about the AMT. How we do it and how we put the package together everybody knows is extremely complicated. I want to get to a fair & progressive tax system. The AMT has to be part of what we try to change when I’m president
There are a lot of moving pieces here. There are kinds of issues we’re going to deal with as the tax cuts expire. I want to freeze the estate tax at the 2009 level of $7 million for a couple. I’m not going to get committed to a specific approach.

Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University
, Oct 30, 2007

Why cut off payroll contribution at $95,000?

Q: Do you agree that the rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes?

A: Middle-class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income. [Billionaires like] Warren Buffett pay about 17%, because don’t forget, it’s the payroll
tax plus the income tax. And when you cut off the contribution at $95,000, that’s a lot of money between $95,000 and the $46 million that Warren Buffett made last year. We’ve got to get back to having those with the most contribute to this country.

Cut alternative minimum tax, not billionaire tax cuts

I’ll tell you something that we are going to have to deal with, the alternative minimum tax, which falls heavily on a lot of you and your families. You know, for six years I’ve been saying, with all due respect, do the billionaires in
America need more tax cuts? Don’t you think we ought to cut the taxes of middle income people, in particular those who are going to be hit by the alternative minimum tax?

Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC
, Mar 14, 2007

Expand child tax credit for child’s first year

As we learn more about the kind of intensive child care that gives our kids the best start, parents worry that their kids’ care doesn’t measure up. Our tax policies do not reflect the cost of raising children, which is why we should expand the child tax
credit for the first year of a child’s life to help parents stay home and give lower-income parents who receive government support for child care the option to sue the subsidies to cover the costs of staying home and caring for their own children.
I want to see the Family and Medical Leave Act expanded so that all families who need it can use it without losing their jobs. It is past time for our national politics to do more than just talk about family values.
We need to value families by helping them raise resilient, productive children.

End Bush tax cuts;take things away from rich for common good

When Hillary spoke at a private San Francisco fundraiser in 2004, an A.P. reporter caught a particularly illuminating comment by Clinton about the 2001 tax cuts. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short
not give it to you,” she said. “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Her uncharacteristic frankness perhaps reflected the liberal audience [or their wealth], or her possible ignorance of a reporter’s presence there.
But it allows for a penetrating view into Clinton’s thinking on economic policy. In Clinton’s eyes, government redistribution--not private entrepreneurship--is the key to economic growth.

To get America back on track, cut short tax cuts

Hillary spoke against tax cuts for wealthy: “Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you.
We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Source: What Every American Should Know, by the ACU, p. 66
, Sep 30, 2005

Social issues matter; wrong time for tax cuts

Appearing before a cheering throng of supporters, with President Clinton and daughter Chelsea by her side, Clinton expressed her gratitude. "62 counties, 16 months, 3 debates, 2 opponents, and 6 black pantsuits later, because of you, here we are,"
Clinton exultantly recounted. "You came out and said issues and ideals matter. Jobs matter, downstate and upstate. Health care matters. Education matters. The environment matters. Social Security matters. A woman's right to choose matters.
It all matters, and I just want to say, from the bottom of my heart, thank you, New York."

The first order of business is a speech on the Senate floor, in which she sounds a warning about President Bush's proposed tax cut. "I know and respect that
President Bush supports faith-based programs," she states, "but his tax plan should not be one of them. Going ahead with a huge tax proposal now is like getting a letter from Ed McMahon and going out to buy a yacht."

NY share of federal taxes is too high

I will be on your side for a fair share for New York. It is wrong that New York sends $15 billion more in taxes each year to Washington than New York gets back. That’s a big reason local property taxes are so high. We can change that working together.

Source: Announcement Speech, SUNY Purchase
, Feb 6, 2000

GOP tax plan would hurt New York’s students

The [Republican Congressional tax plan] will cut education in New York by more than $1.5 billion. And that will translate into fewer teachers, fewer children in Head Start, and fewer college opportunities for New Yorkers trying to afford college.

Source: Listening event at the School of Arts in Rochester
, Aug 6, 1999

Hillary Clinton on Voting Record

Just Say No to GOP tax plan

The [Republican Congressional tax plan] is a risky, short-sighted tax scheme. I call on the people of New York to let Congress know that what they are doing is just wrong.
I want to make it clear that New York will not stand for this kind of irresponsible behavior out of Washington.

Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To put children ahead of millionaires and billionaires by restoring the pre-2001 top income tax rate for people earning over $1 million, and use this revenue to invest in LIHEAP; IDEA; Head Start; Child Care; nutrition; school construction and deficit reduction.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. SANDERS: The wealthiest people in the country have not had it so good since the 1920s. Their incomes are soaring, while at the same time the middle class is shrinking, and we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country. The time is now to begin changing our national priorities and moving this country in a different direction.

This amendment restores the top income tax bracket for households earning more than $1 million a year, it raises $32.5 billion over 3 years, and invests that in our kids, including
$10 billion for special education. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. KYL: The problem is we are spending the same dollar 3 or 4 times, it appears. The Sanders amendment is paid for by raising taxes another $32.5 billion, ostensibly from the rich; that is to say, by raising taxes on people who make over $1 million a year. Here is the problem with that. The budget on the floor already assumes the expiration of the current tax rates; that is to say, the rates on the highest level go from 35% to 39.6%, and that money is spent. If you took all the top-rate income, you would come up with $25 billion a year, not even enough to meet what is here, and that money has already been spent. The reality is somewhere or other, somehow, more taxes would have to be raised. I don't think the American people want to do that, particularly in the current environment. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 43-55

Voted NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:To exempt from pay-as-you-go enforcement modifications to the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) that prevent millions of additional taxpayers from having to pay the AMT.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. GRASSLEY: The Senate voted to make sure that middle-class America didn't pay the AMT, and we did it without an offset, by a vote of [about 95%]. So here we are again with an opportunity to say to middle-class America that we are not going to tax the people who were not supposed to be hit by the AMT. This amendment gives us an opportunity to get over that hurdle that is in this budget resolution that, under pay-go, you would have to have an offset for the AMT. Unless my amendment is adopted, the 25 million families who will be hit by the AMT increase will get a tax increase of over $2,000 apiece. They deserve a guarantee of relief.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:
Sen. CONRAD: If you want to blow a hole in the budget as big as all outdoors, here is your opportunity--a trillion dollars not paid for, a trillion dollars that we are going to go out and borrow from the Chinese and Japanese. That makes absolutely no sense. I urge my colleagues to vote no.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 47-51

Voted NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:To protect small businesses, family ranches and farms from the Death Tax by providing a $5 million exemption, a low rate for smaller estates and a maximum rate no higher than 35%.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. KYL: This amendment is a reprise of what we did last year in offering to reform the estate tax, sometimes referred to as the death tax. Now, in the budget itself, there is a provision to allow the death tax to be changed from the current law to a top rate of 45% and an exempted amount of $3.5 million, and there are some other features. My amendment would reduce that top rate to no higher than 35% so that if you had more than one rate, at least the top rate could not exceed 35%, and both of the two spouses would have a $5 million exempted amount before the estate tax would kick in. Now, the reason for my amendment is: current law [is] getting up to a high rate of 55% and an exempted amount of either $2 million or
$1 million, probably $1 million--a continued unfair burden on primarily America's small businesses and farms.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. CONRAD: This amendment would virtually eliminate the estate tax. Let me say why. Let me first say there is no death tax in the country. Of course, if you poll people and you ask them: Do you want to eliminate the death tax? they will say sure. But you are not going to pay any tax when you die unless you have $2 million. There is no death tax in America. There is a tax on estates. At today's level of $2 million, that affects only 0.5% of estates. When the exemption reaches $3.5 million in 2009, 0.2% of estates will be taxed. If the amendment is agreed to, we would be borrowing money in the name of 99.8% of the American people, borrowing primarily from China & Japan, to give it to the Warren Buffets, the Paris Hiltons, & others of enormous wealth in this country.

Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Amendment would accommodate the full repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, preventing 23 million families and individuals from being subject to the AMT in 2007, and millions of families and individuals in subsequent years.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

This amendment repeals the AMT. Except for the telephone tax, the alternative minimum tax is the phoniest tax we have ever passed. The AMT, in 1969, was meant to hit 155 taxpayers who used legal means to avoid taxation, under the theory that everybody ought to pay some income tax.

This very year, more than 2,000 people who are very wealthy are not paying any income tax or alternative minimum income tax. So it is not even working and hitting the people it is supposed to hit. Right now, this year, 2007, the year we are in, there are 23 million families that are going to be hit by this tax. It is a phony revenue machine, over 5 years, $467 billion dollars.
We are going to have to have a point of order this year to keep these 23 million taxpayers from paying this tax. We might as well do away with it right now, once and for all, and be honest about it.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

The reality of the budget resolution is this may not have anything to do with eliminating the alternative minimum tax. The one thing it will do is reduce the revenue of the Government over the next 5 years by $533 billion, plunging us right back into deficit. Look, we can deal with the AMT. We have dealt with it in the underlying budget resolution for the next 2 years. There will be no increase in the number of people affected by the AMT for the next 2 years under the budget resolution, and that is paid for. Unfortunately, this amendment is not paid for. It would plunge us back into deficit. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million.

An amendment to raise the death tax exemption to $5 million; reducing the maximum death tax rate to 35%; and to promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

It is disappointing to many family businesses and farm owners to set the death tax rate at what I believe is a confiscatory 45% and set the exemption at only $3.5 million, which most of us believe is too low. This leaves more than 22,000 families subject to the estate tax each year.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

You can extend all the tax breaks that have been described in this amendment if you pay for them.
The problem with the amendment is that over $70 billion is not paid for. It goes on the deficit, which will drive the budget right out of balance. We will be going right back into the deficit ditch. Let us resist this amendment. People could support it if it was paid for, but it is not. However well intended the amendment is, it spends $72.5 billion with no offset. This amendment blows the budget. This amendment takes us from a balance in 2012 right back into deficit. My colleagues can extend those tax cuts if they pay for them, if they offset them. This amendment does not pay for them; it does not offset them; it takes us back into deficit. It ought to be defeated.

Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts.

Increases the estate tax exclusion to $5,000,000, effective 2015, and repeals the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes. Lowers the estate tax rate to equal the current long-term capital gains tax rate (i.e., 15% through 2010) for taxable estates up to $25 million. Repeals after 2009 the estate tax deduction paid to states.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

The permanent solution to the death tax challenge that we have today is a compromise. It is a compromise that prevents the death rate from escalating to 55% and the exclusion dropping to $1 million in 2011. It also includes a minimum wage increase, 40% over the next 3 years. Voting YES is a vote for that permanent death tax relief. Voting YES is for that extension of tax relief. Voting YES is for that 40% minimum wage increase. This gives us the opportunity to address an issue that will affect the typical American family, farmers, & small business owners.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Family businesses and family farms should not be broken up to pay taxes. With the booming economy of the 1990s, many more Americans joined the ranks of those who could face estate taxes. Raising the exemption level and lowering the rate in past legislation made sense. Under current law, in my State of Delaware, fewer than 50 families will face any estate tax in 2009. I oppose this legislation's complete repeal of the estate tax because it will cost us $750 billion. Given the world we live in today, with clear domestic needs unmet, full repeal is a luxury that we cannot afford.

To add insult to this injury, the first pay raise for minimum wage workers in 10 years is now hostage to this estate tax cut. We are told that to get those folks on minimum wage a raise, we have to go into debt, so that the sons and daughters of the 7,000 most fortunate families among us will be spared the estate tax. We must say no to this transparent gimmick.

Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`.

A cloture motion ends debate and forces a vote on the issue. In this case, voting YES implies support for permanently repealing the death tax. Voting against cloture would allow further amendments. A cloture motion requires a 3/5th majority to pass. This cloture motion failed, and there was therefore no vote on repealing the death tax.

Proponents of the motion say:

We already pay enough taxes over our lifetimes We are taxed from that first cup of coffee in the morning to the time we flip off the lights at bedtime. If you are an enterprising entrepreneur who has worked hard to grow a family business or to keep and maintain that family farm, your spouse and children can expect to hear the knock of the tax man right after the Grim Reaper.

In the past, when Congress enacted a death tax, it was at an extraordinary time of war, and the purpose was to raise temporary funds. But after the war was over the death tax was repealed. But that changed in the last century.
The death tax was imposed and has never been lifted.

The death tax tells people it is better to consume today than to invest for the future. That doesn't make sense.

Opponents of the motion say:

Small businesses and farms rarely--if ever--are forced to sell off assets or close up shop to pay the tax. Under the current exemption, roughly 99% of estates owe nothing in estate taxes. By 2011, with a $3.5 million exemption, only two of every 100,000 people who die that year would be subject to the estate tax.

Today's vote is on a motion to proceed to a bill to repeal the estate tax. Not to proceed to a compromise or any other deal--but to full repeal. I oppose full repeal of the estate tax. Our Nation can no longer afford this tax break for the very well off. Permanently repealing the estate tax would add about $1 trillion to our national debt from 2011 to 2021.

Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut.

To strengthen America's military, to repeal the extension of tax rates for capital gains and dividends, to reduce the deficit, and for other purposes. Specifically, a YES vote would appropriate $47 billion to the military and would pay for it by repealing the extension of tax cuts for capital gains and dividends to 2010 back to 2008. The funds wuold be used as follows:

Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.

This large piece of legislation (418 pages) includes numerous provisions, generally related to extending the tax cuts initiated by President Bush. This vote was on final passage of the bill. The specific provisions include:

Extension Of Expiring Provisions: for business expenses, retirement savings contributions, higher education expenses, new markets tax credit, and deducting state and local sales taxes.

Health care for children (among many other things) should come before tax cuts for the wealthy.

The 2-year cost of the extensions on capital gains tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is $20 billion. So if we defer the tax break the administration is pushing for the wealthiest people in
America, we would have enough money to provide basic health insurance for every uninsured child in America, and we would eliminate 20% of the uninsured Americans with that single act alone.

Proponents of the bill recommend voting YEA because:

The largest provision in the bill--about $30 billion of tax relief--amounts to half of the net tax package and is designed to keep 14 million people out of the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is terrible and should be repealed.

College tuition benefits for families who send their kids to college -- by definition, this benefit goes to middle-income families.

The small savers' credit -- for low-income folks that save through an IRA or pension plan.

Many small businesses use the small business expensing benefit to buy equipment on an efficient after-tax basis. It is good for small business. It is good for economic growth.

Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years.

H.R. 2 Conference Report; Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would make available $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. It would provide $20 billion in state aid that consists of $10 billion for Medicaid and $10 billion to be used at states' judgment. The agreement contains a new top tax rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2007 (5 percent for lower-income taxpayers in 2007 and no tax in 2008). Income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and planned to take effect in 2006 would be accelerated. The child tax credit would be raised to $1,000 through 2004. The standard deduction for married couples would be double that for a single filer through 2004. Tax breaks for businesses would include expanding the deduction that small businesses could take on investments to $100,000 through 2005.

Vote to expand the standard deduction and 15% income tax bracket for couples. The elimination of the "marriage penalty" tax would be offset by reducing the marginal tax rate reductions for the top two rate bracket

Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.

Vote to increase the tax deduction for college tuition costs from $5,000 to $12,000 and increase the tax credit on student loan interest from $500 to $1,000. The expense would be offset by limiting the cut in the top estate tax rate to 53%.

Every year National Taxpayers Union (NTU) rates U.S. Representatives and Senators on their actual votes—every vote that significantly affects taxes, spending, debt, and regulatory burdens on consumers and taxpayers. NTU assigned weights to the votes, reflecting the importance of each vote’s effect. NTU has no partisan axe to grind. All Members of Congress are treated the same regardless of political affiliation. Our only constituency is the overburdened American taxpayer. Grades are given impartially, based on the Taxpayer Score. The Taxpayer Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes. In general, a higher score is better because it means a Member of Congress voted to lessen or limit the burden on taxpayers.
The Taxpayer Score can range between zero and 100. We do not expect anyone to score a 100, nor has any legislator ever scored a perfect 100 in the multi-year history of the comprehensive NTU scoring system. A high score does not mean that the Member of Congress was opposed to all spending or all programs. High-scoring Members have indicated that they would vote for many programs if the amount of spending were lower. A Member who wants to increase spending on some programs can achieve a high score if he or she votes for offsetting cuts in other programs. A zero score would indicate that the Member of Congress approved every spending proposal and opposed every pro-taxpayer reform.

Citizens for Tax Justice, founded in 1979, is not-for-profit public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ's mission is to give ordinary people a greater voice in the development of tax laws.
Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy, CTJ fights for: